As Jeff says:
This is not serious military analysis: it is blind, unthinking panic.
I guess a military historian able to analyze events solidly established in the past isn't able to distance himself from the politics of the war being waged.
UPDATE: Really, based on Van Creveld's standards, the very existence of Israel--which has required a military campaign to establish and defend for nearly sixty years now--would have to rank as the most foolish war since 9 B.C. I mean, talk about crossing the Rhine into hostile territory and being surrounded and attacked by enemies. Casualties continue to climb, there really is no end in sight to the fighting, and getting even ceasefires with some let alone all of their neighbors is proving to be difficult.
When will Van Creveld recommend the Israelis bug out to a safer location in a classic withdrawal? And how will they guard against civil war on their former territory and the emergence of a radical anti-Western regime? Won't it become a hornet's nest of jihadis? Truly, by Van Creveld's standards, the Israelis need a different and more competent team in charge in Jerusalem to pull this off. Then they can start on the war crimes trials for putting the Jews in such danger in Palestine in the first place.
Let me tell you, I have trouble working up a high degree of worry over the human transmission postential of bird flu when Bush Derangement Syndrome is spreading so rapidly from human to human. Indeed, those who I assumed had the necessary immunity are displaying the most lethal syndromes. I hope Van Creveld gets well soon and in five years he writes an insightful history of how we won the Iraq War.
